Facts
The appellant [X.] was found guilty by the Regional Court of Emmental-Oberaargau of simple violation of traffic rules by exceeding the signaled maximum speed on highways by 6 km/h and performing an act that impairs attention and thereby makes it difficult to drive a vehicle safely, and was sentenced to a fine of CHF 540.-- and to pay the costs of the proceedings. The High Court of the Canton of Bern confirmed the judgment of the first instance in the penalty, but reduced the first-instance costs to be borne by [X.] .
[X.] requests in his appeal that he be acquitted of all charges; alternatively, the case should be referred back to the High Court for a new decision. He complains of a violation of the principle of accusation, the right to an independent court, and of Art. 329 para. 2 CrimPC, as well as the principle of in dubio pro reo as a rule of evidence.
Considerations
The Federal Court denies a violation of the principle of accusation. The indictment must describe the offenses attributed to the accused person in their factual context so precisely that the accusations are sufficiently concretized in both objective and subjective terms. The lower court does not violate federal law when it considers that the referral of the penal order, which is deemed to be an indictment, to the public prosecutor's office by the first instance was permissible under Art. 329 para. 2 CrimPC and was made in good time within the framework of the preliminary examination at the beginning of the main hearing.
The Federal Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court. The lower court convincingly explains why it considers the alleged facts to be proven. The appellant argues that, although he had directed his gaze at a device in his hand at the time of the radar recording, operating it while driving is not recognizable. However, the lower court correctly points out that the appellant…